Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Cramer

Hamilton Circuit Court

Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Cramer

12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 315, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 275

DecidedJuly 3, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 315 (Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Cramer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Cramer, 12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 315, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 275 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

The admission in the answer of the defendant “that it is necessary to oil and grease said'rails at curves,” and the testimony of the plaintiff and the police officer as to the location, quantity and character of the grease warranted the inference that the defendant not only put it. there, but did it in a negligent manner. These facts being once found no two persons of ordinary intelligence could disagree as to whether a reasonably prudent man, not in the- ordinary course of events, but under the surrounding circumstances, would foresee that the acts done would be liable to cause damage or injury. It ceased to be a question of fact for the jury, and became one of 1-aw for the court. There was no intervening cause alleged or proved that required or rendered pertinent the instruction requested by the defendant after the general charge to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The admission in the answer of the defendant “that it is necessary to oil and grease said'rails at curves,” and the testimony of the plaintiff and the police officer as to the location, quantity and character of the grease warranted the inference that the defendant not only put it. there, but did it in a negligent manner. These facts being once found no two persons of ordinary intelligence could disagree as to whether a reasonably prudent man, not in the- ordinary course of events, but under the surrounding circumstances, would foresee that the acts done would be liable to cause damage or injury. It ceased to be a question of fact for the jury, and became one of 1-aw for the court. There was no intervening cause alleged or proved that required or rendered pertinent the instruction requested by the defendant after the general charge to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 315, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-traction-co-v-cramer-ohcircthamilton-1909.